DOCSLIB.ORG

Speech by Harold Wilson on Britain's Membership to the EEC (17 July 1971)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Speech by Harold Wilson on Britain's Membership to the EEC (17 July 1971) Speech by Harold Wilson on Britain's membership to the EEC (17 July 1971) Source: Labour and the Common Market, Report of a special conference of the Labour Party, Central Hall, Westminster, 17 July 1971. London: Labour Party, 1971. 50 p. p. 42-49. Copyright: (c) Labour Party URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/speech_by_harold_wilson_on_britain_s_membership_to_the_eec_17_july_1971-en- c610eb85-fcb9-487b-8704-179006a9442f.html Publication date: 13/09/2013 1 / 10 13/09/2013 Speech by Harold Wilson on Britain's membership to the EEC (17 July 1971) Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson, M.P. (National Executive Committee): […] Our timetable today, our Conference today, is related to the procedure we shall follow from now on. On the 28 July, the National Executive Committee will take the decision whether to support or reject the Conservative Government's proposal that Britain should join the European Economic Communities on the terms which Conservative Ministers have brought back from their negotiations. […] In view of some of the references made today by a number of delegates, I feel it is right I should begin by reminding Conference of the policy we have followed as a Party over these past years. And if I have a number of quotations, I apologise. But I think I owe this to the Conference in view of the quotations by one or two in this hall—and far more outside—which are sometimes taken out of context, and which have given the wrong impression. Our 1966 Manifesto said, "Labour believes that Britain in consultation with her E.F.T.A. partners, should be ready to enter the European Community provided essential British and Commonwealth interests are safeguarded." On this basis in May, 1967, the Labour Cabinet decided to apply for entry. Announcing this to Parliament, I referred to the statement I had made the previous November that the then Foreign Secretary and I would be embarking on a series of discussions with each of the Heads of Government of the Six for the purpose of establishing whether it appeared likely that essential British and Commonwealth interests could be safeguarded if Britain were to accept the Treaty of Rome and join the E.E.C. Following the discussions in the capitals of the Six, I announced our decision to apply. I outlined our hopes of what could be achieved if satisfactory terms were obtained. I added, and here I quote, "It is also the Government's view that the financial arrangements which have been devised to meet the requirements of the Community's agricultural policy as it exists today would, if applied to Britain as they now stand, involve an inequitable cost and impose on our balance of payments an additional burden which we should not in fairness be asked to carry." That was said in the statement announcing the application. In 1969 Conference carried a resolution calling for adequate safeguards for Britain's balance of payments, cost of living, National Health and Social Security systems and power of independent decision in economic planning and foreign policy. This is what I said from the platform of that Conference. "If . we achieve terms satisfactory for Britain on the lines we have outlined, then negotiations will succeed. But, unlike the situation in 1961, we no longer face the challenge of Europe cap in hand. Europe needs us just as much, and many would say more, than we need Europe. It is the common interest of all of us to achieve economic unity, and if this cannot be achieved, we can stand on our own feet. At a heavy price for Britain, no doubt, but at a heavier price for Europe, and at a devastating price for Europe's influence in the world." In the autumn of 1969, following a pledge I gave to Conference, the Labour Government embarked on the task of assembling the best estimates that could be made of the likely cost and benefits to Britain of entry, including the cost for our balance of payments, food prices and the cost of living. In February 1970 I presented our conclusions to Parliament, the Cabinet's conclusions, with these words: "If, when the decision is to be taken, the disadvantages for Britain appear excessive in relation to the benefits which would flow from British entry, the Government clearly would not propose to Parliament we should enter the Communities. If, on the other hand, the costs, after negotiations, appear acceptable in relation to the benefits, the Government will recommend entry. "We have made it clear that if the negotiations produce acceptable conditions for British entry, we believe 2 / 10 13/09/2013 that will be advantageous for Britain, for Europe, and for Europe's voice in the world. Equally, we have made it clear that if the conditions which emerge from the negotiations are in the Government's view not acceptable, we could rely on our own strength outside the Communities." Mr. Chairman, that was our final pronouncement as a Government. In our Election Manifesto last year, 1970, referring to the negotiations then about to begin, we said: "These will be pressed with determination, with the purpose of joining an enlarged Community provided that British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded. This year, unlike 1961 1963, Britain will be negotiating from a position of economic strength. Britain's strength means we shall be able to meet the challenges and realise the opportunities of joining an enlarged Community. But it means, too, that if satisfactory terms cannot be secured in the negotiations, Britain will be able to stand on her own feet outside the Community." If there are to be charges of inconsistency, they are upon anyone who departs from those words on which we voted at the last Election. (Applause.) Our position has continued the same, after the Election, in Opposition. At last year's Conference, I repeated what I said in Parliament and in Conference about the adequacy of our strength to meet the Common Market challenge if the terms were right, and equally to enable us to stand on our own feet outside the Community if the terms were wrong. I went on: "I believe that is still true, though we shall watch anxiously how far the irresponsible men now in power in this country fritter away that strength by pursuing false economic objectives and by their policy of dividing— where we did so much to unite—our nation." I went on: "Unlike the situation eight years ago, had it been a Labour Government which secured entry into the Common Market in the present negotiations, it would not have been out of crippling weakness but out of confident strength. That strength must not now be dissipated. But if our warnings about this fall on deaf ears, there is one argument we will not accept—and we have heard it before—that, whatever the terms, we have to go in because we are too weak to stay out." (Applause.) That is what I said to Conference last year. Therefore, the position of this Party has remained consistent over this whole period. Our application was in. It remained in. If the negotiations produced the necessary safeguards, the Labour Government would have recommended entry to Parliament. In default of adequate safeguards we would have had confidence in our newly gained economic strength to sustain us outside the Common Market. That has been our approach throughout. And the decision the N.E.C. takes on the 28th July, the decision Conference will be asked to take in October, will be fully consistent with what we have said over these four years and more. Never have we said— nor is a single word we, or I, have said capable of being construed as meaning— that we have to accept whatever terms emerged. We reserved the right to judge the terms of entry against the potential benefits, and on that test, and on no other, to decide for or against entry, and this we shall do. I reject the assertions, wherever they come from, that the terms this Conservative Government have obtained are the terms the Labour Government asked for— and we did not in fact get involved in the negotiations— the terms the Labour Government would have asked for, the terms the Labour Government would have been bound to accept. I reject these assertions. (Applause.) Those terms, which we set out in detail in the Labour Government's White Paper in July, 1967, and indeed made clear to Europe, are not the terms now before Parliament. It is irresponsible for anyone who knows the facts to assert otherwise. The Labour Government set out four principal conditions. The first condition, one utterly vital to any assessment of the cost of entry in relation to the benefits, is, as many have said from this platform, the burden on our balance of payments. The Conservative Government refuse to give any estimate in public about the total size of that burden. What they have indicated is the possible cost of our short term annual membership contribution, the annual club fee, paid directly by British taxpayers and consumers and handed over to the common funds of the Communities. And that goes, of course, in the main to subsidise basically 3 / 10 13/09/2013 inefficient farm production in France and elsewhere in the Market. But on top of that there is the calculation which has to be made of the effect on Britain's trade. There is the certain damage to some of our large, traditional export markets which will be affected by our being required to adopt the Community's rules. This damage will be the greater in Commonwealth markets, because the Commonwealth preference from which we now benefit will go, and discrimination against the Commonwealth can limit their ability to buy from us.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of the Labour League of Youth
    University of Huddersfield Repository Webb, Michelle The rise and fall of the Labour league of youth Original Citation Webb, Michelle (2007) The rise and fall of the Labour league of youth. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/761/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ THE RISE AND FALL OF THE LABOUR LEAGUE OF YOUTH Michelle Webb A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Huddersfield July 2007 The Rise and Fall of the Labour League of Youth Abstract This thesis charts the rise and fall of the Labour Party’s first and most enduring youth organisation, the Labour League of Youth.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Report
    YouGov Survey Results Sample Size: 1096 Labour Party Members Fieldwork: 27th February - 3rd March 2017 EU Ref Vote 2015 Vote Age Gender Social Grade Region Membership Length 2016 Leadership Vote Not Rest of Midlands / Pre Corbyn After Corbyn Jeremy Owen Don't Know / Total Remain Leave Lab 18-39 40-59 60+ Male Female ABC1 C2DE London North Scotland Lab South Wales leader leader Corbyn Smith Did Not Vote Weighted Sample 1096 961 101 859 237 414 393 288 626 470 743 353 238 322 184 294 55 429 667 610 377 110 Unweighted Sample 1096 976 96 896 200 351 434 311 524 572 826 270 157 330 217 326 63 621 475 652 329 115 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Which of the following issues, if any, do you think Labour should prioritise in the future? Please tick up to three. Health 66 67 59 67 60 63 65 71 61 71 68 60 58 67 74 66 66 64 67 70 57 68 Housing 43 42 48 43 43 41 41 49 43 43 41 49 56 45 40 35 22 46 41 46 40 37 Britain leaving the EU 43 44 37 45 39 45 44 41 44 43 47 36 48 39 43 47 37 46 42 35 55 50 The economy 37 37 29 38 31 36 36 37 44 27 39 32 35 40 35 34 40 46 30 29 48 40 Education 25 26 15 26 23 28 26 22 25 26 26 24 22 25 29 23 35 26 25 26 23 28 Welfare benefits 20 19 28 19 25 15 23 23 14 28 16 28 16 21 17 21 31 16 23 23 14 20 The environment 16 17 4 15 21 20 14 13 14 19 15 18 16 21 14 13 18 8 21 20 10 19 Immigration & Asylum 10 8 32 11 10 12 10 9 12 8 10 11 12 6 9 15 6 10 10 8 12 16 Tax 10 10 11 10 8 8 12 8 11 8 8 13 9 11 10 9 8 8 11 13 6 2 Pensions 4 3 7 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 6 5 2 6 3 6 2 5 5 3 1 Family life & childcare 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 5 3 4 1 4 3 5 2 4 3 4 4 3 Transport 3 3 3 3 4 5 2 2 4 1 3 2 3 5 2 2 1 4 3 4 3 0 Crime 2 2 6 2 2 4 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 4 2 2 2 3 1 None of these 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Don’t know 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Now thinking about what Labour promise about Brexit going into the next general election, do you think Labour should..
    [Show full text]
  • A Tribute to Harold Wilson Harold Wilson, 29 Years in Parliament
    A Tribute to Harold Wilson Harold Wilson, 29 years in Parliament, thirteen years as Leader of the articulate ,quarrelsome and aspirational Labour Party, eight years as Prime Minister,during which he estimated that he had answered 12000 Parliamentary questions and had spoken to well over a hundred public meetings a year, was by any measure a remarkable phenomenon. He had learned at an early age the ways of government, not least as a Cabinet Minister at the age of 31 in Clement Attlee’s radical post war government. He had demonstrated his remarkable skill as an economist and a statistician at the Bond of Trade. Elected as Prime Minister with a hair breadth majority in 1964, within two years he had transformed that into a solid majority. But Harold Wilson was not just a gifted politician. Born in Huddersfield of hardworking, nonconformist parents whose background was rooted in the hills and moors of Rievaulx in North Yorkshire, he imbibed from his childhood a commitment to social justice. His proudest boast about his own administration was that the British people enjoyed ‘a higher level of social justice and equality than our people have ever known’. Partly that was due to what he memorably characterised, in a speech in the New Town of Stevenage in my then constituency of North Herts, as ‘the white heat of technology’. But not only that. He believed in ideals that, in our current era of gated communities and yawning gulfs between rich and poor, have become unfashionable – the common good, shared sacrifice, solidarity. Ministers were told to travel economy class and to share cars unless they were working on sensitive or secret material .
    [Show full text]
  • Prime Minister Harold Wilson (3)” of the National Security Adviser’S Presidential Correspondence with Foreign Leaders Collection at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 5, folder “United Kingdom - Prime Minister Harold Wilson (3)” of the National Security Adviser’s Presidential Correspondence with Foreign Leaders Collection at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 5 of the NSA Presidential Correspondence with Foreign Leaders Collection at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library Department of State TELEGRAM e€8PWXDfflTlAL.- 5078 PAGf 01 STATE 016394 TOSEC 010129 45 ORIGIN 85•25 IN'O OCT•01 IS0•00 SS0•00 NSCE•00 CC0•00 /026 R DRAFTED BY EUR/Wf:MLDURKEEIMJK APPROVED BY EUR/WE • MRv BARBOUR 8/S • MR. ORTIZ EUR • MR!i ETNG NSC • TEXT RCVO FROM WHITE HOUSE UJ5515 0 2219032 JAN 76 ZFF5 FM SECSTATE WASHOC TO AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE INFO AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE USOEL SECRETARY IMMEDIATE G 0 N F-4 B E N T I A I: STATE 016394 TOSEC 010129 EXOIS I f.,O, 11652: GOS TAGS: INFO, SP, U~ SUBJECT I PRESIDENTIAL ' LETTER TO PRIME MINlSTf!R WILSON ~ PLEASE CONVEY THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT FORD TO PRIME MINISTER WILSON IN RESPONSE TO THE PRIME MINISTERVS LETTER OF DECEMBER 22.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewer Who May Quote Passages in a Review
    1 CAN LABOUR WIN? About Policy Network Policy Network is an international thinktank and research institute. Its network spans national borders across Europe and the wider world with the aim of promot- ing the best progressive thinking on the major social and economic challenges of the 21st century. Our work is driven by a network of politicians, policymakers, business leaders, public service professionals, and academic researchers who work on long-term issues relating to public policy, political economy, social attitudes, governance and international affairs. This is complemented by the expertise and research excellence of Policy Network’s international team. A platform for research and ideas • Promoting expert ideas and political analysis on the key economic, social and political challenges of our age. • Disseminating research excellence and relevant knowledge to a wider public audience through interactive policy networks, including interdisciplinary and scholarly collaboration. • Engaging and informing the public debate about the future of European and global progressive politics. A network of leaders, policymakers and thinkers • Building international policy communities comprising individuals and affiliate institutions. • Providing meeting platforms where the politically active, and potential leaders of the future, can engage with each other across national borders and with the best thinkers who are sympathetic to their broad aims. • Engaging in external collaboration with partners including higher education institutions, the private sector, thinktanks, charities, community organisations, and trade unions. • Delivering an innovative events programme combining in-house seminars with large-scale public conferences designed to influence and contribute to key public debates. www.policy-network.net CAN LABOUR WIN? The Hard Road to Power Patrick Diamond and Giles Radice with Penny Bochum London • New York Published by Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York
    promoting access to White Rose research papers Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ This is an author produced version of a paper published in Political Quarterly White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/78536 Paper: Theakston, K and Gill, M (2011) The Postwar Premiership League. Political Quarterly, 82 (1). 67 - 80. ISSN 0032-3179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2011.02170.x White Rose Research Online [email protected] The Post-war Premiership League Kevin Theakston and Mark Gill Who has been the best British prime minister since the Second World War? As David Cameron passes up and down the Grand Staircase in Number 10 Downing Street every day, the portraits of his predecessors as prime minister stare down at him. They are arranged in chronological order, with the most recent at the top of the stairs. If they were to be arranged in order of greatness, success or effectiveness in office, or policy achievement and legacy, the sequence would look very different. We report here the results from the latest survey of academic experts polled on the performance of post-1945 prime ministers. Academic specialists in British politics and history rate Clement Attlee as the best post-war prime minister, with Margaret Thatcher in second place just ahead of Tony Blair in third place. Gordon Brown’s stint in Number 10 was the third- worst since the Second World War, according to the respondents to the survey that rated his premiership as less successful than that of John Major.
    [Show full text]
  • Tactical Voting and How the Left Should Deal with the Governing Coalition
    NEW POLITICS Tactical voting and how the left should deal with the governing coalition Neal Lawson and Joe Cox NEW POLITICS Tactical voting and how the left should deal with the governing coalition Neal Lawson and Joe Cox 3 Introduction to compromise with anyone outside Labour’s ranks who are viewed with varying degrees of In the run up to the 2010 general election consid- suspicion. Socialism, to the tribalist, is largely erable polling showed support moving away from seen as what a Labour government does. If it is the Labour Party in favour of the Conservatives not said or done by Labour, then it is unlikely and the Liberal Democrats. to be viewed as progressive. Pluralists on the With Election Day fast-approaching, on 23 other hand see power as more diffuse; there are April the Compass Management Committee many competing centres of power that have to balloted all members on whether to support a be recognised, respected and dealt with through policy of tactical voting in order to help deprive dialogue, cooperation and competition. For the the Conservative Party of a majority government pluralist, engagement with others is felt to be a in the general election. With the biggest return positive process through which we learn, adapt Compass has had in an internal ballot, 72% (467) and build coalitions. Pluralism and tribalism of members backed the call for tactical voting are thus very different ways of trying to make with only 14% (93) against.1 change happen. We know that some in the Labour Party opposed and continue to be critical of this move, but it is important not for the past but for the “Compass is continually trying to develop and future that the issue is fully aired and discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Labour Party and the EEC Decision
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1990 Britain's Labour Party and the EEC Decision Marcia Marie Lewandowski College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Eastern European Studies Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Public Administration Commons Recommended Citation Lewandowski, Marcia Marie, "Britain's Labour Party and the EEC Decision" (1990). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625615. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-4w70-3c60 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BRITAIN'S LABOUR PARTY AND THE EEC DECISION A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Government The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Marcia Lewandowski 1990 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Marcia Marie Lewandowski Approved, May 1990 Alan J. Ward Donald J. B Clayton M. Clemens TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. .............. iv ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review: Harold Wilson: the Unprincipled Prime Minister? Reappraising Harold Wilson Edited by Andrew S
    Book Review: Harold Wilson: The Unprincipled Prime Minister? Reappraising Harold Wilson edited by Andrew S. Crines and Kevin Hickson blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/07/25/book-review-harold-wilson-the-unprincipled-prime-minister-reappraising-harold-wilson-edited-by-andrew-s-crines-and-kevin-hickson/ 2016 marks the centenary of Harold Wilson’s birth, the fiftieth anniversary of his most emphatic election victory and forty years since his resignation as British Prime Minister. In this new volume, Harold Wilson: The Unprincipled Prime Minister? Reappraising Harold Wilson, editors Andrew S. Crines and Kevin Hickson bring together contributors to reflect on Wilson’s legacy within twentieth-century politics. This book offers a robust counter- narrative to existing appraisals of Wilson’s governments and his influence on British politics, writes Gordon Bannerman. Harold Wilson: The Unprincipled Prime Minister? Reappraising Harold Wilson. Andrew S. Crines and Kevin Hickson (eds). Biteback Publishing. 2016. Find this book: Harold Wilson won more General Elections than any other British party leader in the twentieth century and served four times as Prime Minister, albeit less than full terms and often with fragile majorities. Wilson served in the great reforming Clement Attlee governments of 1945-51. After succeeding to the Labour leadership in 1963, his Premierships of 1964-70 and 1974-76 were blighted by economic difficulties and marked by Britain’s readjustment to a changing world. By any measure, Wilson was a towering figure in British political life, and his unexpected resignation in 1976 now seems like the end of an era. Wilson’s place in Labour’s history has long been controversial and, by the time of his death in 1995, his influence had been considerably diminished.
    [Show full text]
  • Harold Wilson, Lyndon B Johnson and Anglo-American Relations 'At the Summit', 1964-68 Colman, Jonathan
    www.ssoar.info A 'special relationship'? Harold Wilson, Lyndon B Johnson and Anglo-American relations 'at the summit', 1964-68 Colman, Jonathan Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Monographie / monograph Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Colman, J. (2004). A 'special relationship'? Harold Wilson, Lyndon B Johnson and Anglo-American relations 'at the summit', 1964-68.. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-271135 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de A ‘special relationship’? prelims.p65 1 08/06/2004, 14:37 To Karin prelims.p65 2 08/06/2004, 14:37 A ‘special relationship’? Harold Wilson, Lyndon B. Johnson and Anglo- American relations ‘at the summit’, 1964–68 Jonathan Colman Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave prelims.p65 3 08/06/2004, 14:37 Copyright © Jonathan Colman 2004 The right of Jonathan Colman to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance
    [Show full text]
  • Roy Jenkins, Europe and the Civilised Society Transcript
    Roy Jenkins, Europe and the Civilised Society Transcript Date: Tuesday, 15 January 2013 - 6:00PM Location: Museum of London 15 January 2013 Roy Jenkins, Europe and the Civilised society Professor Vernon Bogdanor Ladies and gentlemen, this is the third lecture in the series “Making the Weather”, on post-War politicians who did not become Prime Minister, but had as much impact (and maybe more) than those who did become Prime Minister. The first lecture was on Aneurin Bevan, responsible for the National Health Service and a great spokesman for democratic socialism. The second was Iain Macleod, responsible for the rapid pace of decolonisation and a great spokesman for progressive Conservatism. This lecture is on Roy Jenkins, who has three very great achievements to his credit: his liberal legislation as Home Secretary in the 1960s; his strong support for European unity; and his support for the idea of realignment on the left. But first, we shall listen to his voice. This is a recording of him speaking in 1975 at a rather rough meeting in East London where he was being attacked by militants from the left-wing of the Labour Party. As you will see, they threw flour bombs, but he handled it with great aplomb. [Recording plays] I think that conveys something of the flavour of Labour Party disputes in the 1970s! I wonder how many listening to Roy Jenkins would have been able to guess that he was of Welsh origin. Someone once said to Aneurin Bevan that they did not think Roy Jenkins was ambitious. “Not ambitious?!” Bevan replied.
    [Show full text]